Black PR and societal polarization: causal relationships
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31558/2617-0248.2026.11.11Keywords:
black PR, negative campaigning, affective polarization, disinformation, social media, democratic erosion, echo chambers, filter bubblesAbstract
This article examines the causal relationships between negative PR tactics and public polarization in contemporary democracies. Drawing on empirical research from 2020–2025, the study analyzes how negative campaigns, disinformation, and manipulative communication strategies contribute to affective polarization and the erosion of democratic institutions. The study synthesizes findings from the literature on political communication, social psychology, and information systems to demonstrate that negative PR operates through multiple interconnected mechanisms, including the amplification of echo chambers, the amplification of cognitive distortions, the systematic degradation of intergroup trust, and the destabilization of public discourse. Quantitative research results show that negative campaign messages increase affective polarization by 0.2 points on standardized scales, with effects particularly pronounced among individuals who hold populist views and have low levels of media literacy. The article identifies social media filter bubbles, algorithmic content curation, and coordinated transnational disinformation campaigns as key mediating factors mediating the impact of negative PR on social polarization. Cross-national data analysis demonstrates that the intensity of polarization correlates with the frequency of negative campaigns and the prevalence of disinformation in the media space. The results of the study suggest that negative PR tactics create self-reinforcing feedback loops, where initial polarization generates electoral demand for aggressive and destructive messages, which further exacerbates social divisions, undermines political legitimacy, and reduces the effectiveness of democratic governance. The study concludes that addressing this systemic phenomenon requires a comprehensive multi-stakeholder intervention, including the development and implementation of media literacy programs, strengthened accountability measures for digital platforms, legislative regulation of political advertising, and fundamental electoral reform.
References
Qureshi I., et al. (2023). The polarizing impact of political disinformation and hate speech: A cross-country configural narrative. Information Systems Journal. Vol. 33. P. 1055–1088. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12525
Törnberg P. (2022). How digital media drive affective polarization through partisan sorting. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Vol. 119, No. 42. Article e2207159119. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2207159119
Why are we so politically polarized? Here's what research says. (2024). Knowable Magazine. URL: https://knowablemagazine.org/content/article/society/2024/latest-research-what-causes-political-polarization.
Sunstein C. R. (2022). How social media creates echo chambers and fuels polarization. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A. Vol. 380, No. 2224. Article 20210085. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2021.0085
Supriyanto J., et al. (2024). Information pandemic: A critical review of disinformation spread on social media and its implications for state resilience. Social Sciences. Vol. 13, No. 8. Article 418. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13080418
Azzimonti M., Fernandes M. (2023). Social media networks, fake news, and polarization. European Journal of Political Economy. Vol. 76. Article 102256. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2022.102256
Ottengenant Hermes N. B. C. (2024). Echo chambers and filter bubbles: A systematic literature review. University of Groningen. URL: https://campus-fryslan.studenttheses.ub.rug.nl/647/ (дата звернення: 03.01.2026).
Aragon J. C., et al. The power of social networks and social media's filter bubble in shaping polarisation: An agent-based model. Applied Network Science. Vol. 9. Article 65. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41109-024-00679-3
Fletcher R., Nielsen R. K. (2024). Polarization and the news media in Europe. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, 2024. URL: https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/polarization-and-news-media-europe (дата звернення: 03.01.2026).
Guess A. M., et al. (2023). How do social media feed algorithms affect attitudes and behavior in an election campaign? Science. Vol. 381, No. 6656. P. 398–404. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abp9364
Boxell L., Gentzkow M., Shapiro J. M. (2022). Cross-country trends in affective polarization. Review of Economics and Statistics. Vol. 104, No. 3. P. 557–565. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_01160
Kaakinen M., et al. (2023). Echo chambers and polarization in the digital sphere: Examining the Finnish national security debate on social media. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. Vol. 28, No. 3. Article zmad009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmad009
Binder S. A., Curry J. M. (2023). The dysfunctional Congress: The dynamics of legislative gridlock reconsidered. Annual Review of Political Science. Vol. 26. P. 213–232. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051921-102339
Graham M. H., Svolik M. W. (2020). Democracy in America? Partisanship, polarization, and the robustness of support for democracy in the United States. American Political Science Review. Vol. 114, No. 2. P. 392–409. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055420000052
Tucker J. A., et al. (2022). The political consequences of social media misinformation. Annual Review of Political Science. Vol. 25. P. 187–208. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051120-110350
Roozenbeek J., van der Linden S. (2020). Breaking harmony square: A game that "inoculates" against political misinformation. Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-47
Druckman J. N., et al. (2022). The role of race in affective polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly. Vol. 86, No. S1. P. 1–24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfac034
